It’s official: to protect baby’s brain, turn off the TV

A decade ago, the American Academy of Pediatrics' recommendations on …

A decade ago, the American Academy of Pediatrics suggested that parents limit TV consumption by children under two years of age. The recommendations were based as much on common sense as science, because studies of media consumption and infant development were themselves in their infancy.

The research has finally grown up. And though it’s still ongoing, it’s mature enough for the AAP to release a new, science-heavy policy statement on babies watching television, videos or any other passive media form.

Their verdict: It’s not good, and probably bad.

Media, whether playing in the background or designed explicitly as an infant educational tool, has "potentially negative effects and no known positive effects for children younger than 2 years,” concluded the AAP’s report, released Oct. 18 at the Academy’s annual meeting in Boston and scheduled for November publication in the journal Pediatrics. “Although infant/toddler programming might be entertaining, it should not be marketed as or presumed by parents to be educational.”

Since the AAP made its original recommendations in 1999, passive entertainment screens—televisions, DVD players, computers streaming video—have become ubiquitous, and the average 12-month-old gets between one and two hours of screen time per day. (Interactive screens, such as iPads and other tablets, are considered in the new recommendations.) The 0- to 2-year age group has become a prime target for commercial educational programming, often used by parents convinced that it’s beneficial.

As screens proliferated, so did research. “There have been about 50 studies that have come out on media use by children in this age group between 1999 and now,” said Ari Brown, a pediatrician and member of the AAP committee that wrote the new report.

Used at night, TV might help kids fall asleep, but that appears to come at a delayed cost of subsequent sleep disturbances and irregularities. While the result of TV-induced sleep problems hasn’t been directly studied, poor sleep in infants is generally linked to problems with mood, behavior and learning.

At other times, media consumption comes with opportunity costs, foremost among them the silence of parents. “While television is on, there’s less talking, and talk time is very important in language development,” said Brown.

Three studies since 1999 have tracked educational television use and language development, and they found a link between increased TV time and developmental delays. Whether that’s a cause or effect—parents who leave kids in front of televisions might simply be poor teachers—isn’t clear, nor are the long-term effects, but the AAP called the findings “concerning.” In the same vein, there may also be a link to attention problems.

Even when media plays in the background, it distracts babies from play, an activity that is known to have deep developmental benefits. And for parents who use media to carve out a few precious, necessary free minutes in busy schedules, Brown recommended letting kids entertain themselves.

“We know you can’t spend 24 hours a day reading to your child and playing with them. That’s okay. What’s also okay is your child playing independently,” she said. “That’s valuable time. They’re problem-solving. They’re using their imagination, thinking creatively and entertaining themselves.”

As for iPads and other kid-friendly interactive computing devises, Brown said research has barely started, much less come to conclusions. But she counseled skepticism of promotional claims, which have been made with some of the same zeal as products of now-dubious standing, such as the controversial Baby Einstein videos.

“The way these kids’ programs came out was, ‘These are really educational! They’re going to help your kids learn!’ Well that’s great, but prove it. Show me the science,” Brown said. “I don’t have a problem with touch screens, and they’re not necessarily bad. But we need to understand how this affects kids.”

My in-laws purchased the 'your baby can read' videos for our boy when he was six months old. I'd agree with the 'mesmerizing glowing box' description for a kid under a certain age. But when he started the first inklings of speech at somewhere between twelve and eighteen months, he really started to interact with the videos and worked hard to repeat the words he saw and heard on the screen. I would say the 1-1.5 hours of TV per day of TV time is a legit number, though I've never measured.

Having experienced Teletubbies as an adult in a foreign country, I can vouch that they really do work for language comprehension -- provided the viewer is old enough to grasp that education is going on and not just creepy costumed characters running around.

My grasp of German verbs was greatly enhanced in 2 weeks of babysitting.

We let my daughter, 19 months, watch about an hour a day before she goes to bed. She completely understands what is going on and we will still interact with her during it. AKA, talking about the number of the day in Sesame street and the like. I can understand really little kids, but I do seem some usefullness for kids just under 2 who can understand it. It's like just about anything else, in moderation.

My parents just turned on classical music and read books like Good Night Moon and Where the Wild Things are. Plus my mom stayed at home. Didn't have a lot of things growing up (only one parent working), but it was great having a parent at home. You couldn't give me an exorbitant amount of money in exchange for that childhood.

The researcher who says that you can turn the tv off and let kids play by themselves has never met my daughter. She doesn't watch tv however. She is so interested in what we're doing, that if I don't have somewhere else there to physically distract her, I can't make dinner. If tv worked for her I would definitely use it for 15 free minutes to do the dangerous tasks (prep work, raw meat), I can easy deal with her interest in what I'm doing once the food starts cooking.

That said, my wife and I chose to go out of our way to prevent her from watching tv for at least the first 12 months. As she is getting older, we are letting her watch a few shows, but she doesn't even watch it for very long. It may be on, but she is busy doing other things. Usually trying to climb up on the table and taking our phones/keys/anything we need or value.

These studies don't take all variables into consideration, especially parenting and alternatives.

First off, if I throw my child in front of a television for 9 hours a day, that's not an enriching experience... because then I'm not parenting. So of course the child will see developmental issues. On the other hand, tools like teaching your child to read, speak, or learn in some way is HANDS-ON and involves human interaction as well as just a glowing box.

Also, who really has time to spend 16+ hours a day to take care of their child? Even a stay-at-home Mom needs to prepare food, clean, etc. We used to give my little one a Wiimote and she used to think (even at those ages) that she was controlling... something. It was her favorite toy, because she would see us controlling the screen, she thought she could.

Between Dora/KaiLan, Leapster Explorer, and various other "learning games" we'd play with her, she not only can she do math, read (sort of), and she has an incredible vocabulary for being 3... she's actually able to play some video games. Maybe it's because she had a high IQ to begin with (never got her tested) and therefore that potential was there that other kids don't have, or I call bull.

We started our little man with classic movie musicals. He learned to have an attention span. And having the dialogue interspersed with the musical numbers also gave us great break-points.

Our kid lived for Thomas the Tank Engine from 10 months-old to age 3 1/2. The Thomas videos were sweet and the only child show offerings that did not incite me to violence.

(I still want to beat to near death the people behind Dora and Bob the Builder... and when they heal, I want to do it again. -> Barney Must Die!)

Our son turned twelve two weeks ago and is getting straight A's in 8th grade. He will walk out this year with three high-school credits, one of them being Algebra I Intensified. He will graduate two years ahead of his peers.

My in-laws purchased the 'your baby can read' videos for our boy when he was six months old. I'd agree with the 'mesmerizing glowing box' description for a kid under a certain age. But when he started the first inklings of speech at somewhere between twelve and eighteen months, he really started to interact with the videos and worked hard to repeat the words he saw and heard on the screen. I would say the 1-1.5 hours of TV per day of TV time is a legit number, though I've never measured.

So how do you suppose his language skills would have developed during that time if you were reading and speaking to him during the 1-1.5 hours per day? You're a lot more interactive (I hope) than the TV.

coming from a speech therapist who worked with kids 0-3 years and continues to work with young children... THE REASON THEY DONT LEARN ANYTHING FROM TV IS BECAUSE PARENTS USE IT TO IGNORE THEIR KIDS AND SHUT THEM UP... thats why its bad. I have told parents TIME AND TIME again that you can make even TV very educational by making it an ACTIVE (vs passive) activity by engaging the kid in whats going on (restating information, pointing to characters, describing, asking questions, etc). THEY NEED SOMEONE TO EXPLAIN STUFF TO THEM. But parents choose to use TV (even educational shows) as a babysitter. Your kid will learn very little, if nothing, without someone teaching. And if your child learns anything from TV, its not because they sat there by themselves absorbing information, its because active parents with common sense helped their children with the learning process.

My in-laws purchased the 'your baby can read' videos for our boy when he was six months old. I'd agree with the 'mesmerizing glowing box' description for a kid under a certain age. But when he started the first inklings of speech at somewhere between twelve and eighteen months, he really started to interact with the videos and worked hard to repeat the words he saw and heard on the screen. I would say the 1-1.5 hours of TV per day of TV time is a legit number, though I've never measured.

So how do you suppose his language skills would have developed during that time if you were reading and speaking to him during the 1-1.5 hours per day? You're a lot more interactive (I hope) than the TV.

I'll admit that I didn't give you much to go on, but I'll say it anyway: You don't have much to go on. I assure you that he's well taken care of and as intellectually sharp and physically able as any other two year old.

My in-laws purchased the 'your baby can read' videos for our boy when he was six months old. I'd agree with the 'mesmerizing glowing box' description for a kid under a certain age. But when he started the first inklings of speech at somewhere between twelve and eighteen months, he really started to interact with the videos and worked hard to repeat the words he saw and heard on the screen. I would say the 1-1.5 hours of TV per day of TV time is a legit number, though I've never measured.

So how do you suppose his language skills would have developed during that time if you were reading and speaking to him during the 1-1.5 hours per day? You're a lot more interactive (I hope) than the TV.

I'll admit that I didn't give you much to go on, but I'll say it anyway: You don't have much to go on. I assure you that he's well taken care of and as intellectually sharp and physically able as any other two year old.

You'll never hear me say otherwise. I certainly am not questioning your capabilities as a parent, because I don't know them.

I was just posing a rhetorical statement for the purposes of spurring conversation.

A friend once told me "If it wasn't for Barney the Dinosaur, I wouldn't have been able to get a shower for two years." So that sort of thing I can understand - Mama needs 15 minutes to grab a shower, get dinner going, etc, so fine, park the offspring in front of the glowing box for a bit. Hours on end, though, not so much.

Ditto GrandMasterBirt re: explaining things on TV: use those situations as a springboard for conversation, not a substitute.

That might explain why my kids (and I) loved watching TV together. I used to do many of the Blue's Clues tunes, songs and antics with them, Sesame Street with their crazy dialogues, Between the Lions (my son, 11, remembered that just 3 days ago), etc.

Many a Disney movie have we have watched together, multiple times, until the VHS tape has more static than picture :-)

Kids haven't done badly, honestly. They didn't watch a whole lot of TV - but they were not forced to NOT watch TV either.

Yea, you were doing it together, TV was not a parenting substitute. That's the point. There are people who's philosophy is "I didn't know what to do, so I just ignored her." No joke. Its sad. It's sadder when you think at the lost life that child gets.

Oh, god - not that Baby Einstein crap. We got a set of those DVDs from a friend for our daughter's first birthday. I took a look at a couple of them before letting her see them, and they went straight back in their cases. They're sitting in a cupboard somewhere.

Personally I'd agree with the sentiment that two years old is a reasonable threshold to start introducing select programming to your kids. That was the threshold we decided on to let our little 'uns start watching Sesame Street, which I've always felt has enough content to be somewhat beneficial, while not being too dry.

Once they get a little bit older, I've found that Bill Nye is a great program for kids. Hell, I find it pretty entertaining to watch, myself. He really does have a knack of making things interesting.

My daughter just turned 5 the other week. We started going through the first season of Bill Nye a couple of months ago. We watch a couple of episodes every weekend as a treat. She's mesmerised, but in a good way as she always has a pile of questions. It's amazing to watch how she processes information - sometimes she'll have questions there and then, and sometimes she'll obviously have been thinking about it, as she'll have a question hours/days/weeks later.

She already knows about the phases of matter and some of the general principles of buoyancy. She has some sort of mental model of the solar system, and she's fascinated by Jupiter, especially the great red spot which she knows is a huge storm. The list goes on.

Some of that she learned directly, and some of it came from her own investigation (she's been reading for a couple of years now), but it definitely seems to encourage her to ask questions, which I think is a wonderful thing for kids to pick up.

Surprisingly, I'd also rate Alton Brown as a sort of modern-day successor. It's not directly comparable, but Good Eats has that same sort of slightly crazy edge to it, and he does a pretty good job of explaining why things work the way they do in a bunch of weird and interesting ways.

Beakman's world is pretty good along those lines. For even olders, Mythbusters and Dirty Jobs can be fun.

Smeghead wrote:

Once they get a little bit older, I've found that Bill Nye is a great program for kids. Hell, I find it pretty entertaining to watch, myself. He really does have a knack of making things interesting.

My daughter just turned 5 the other week. We started going through the first season of Bill Nye a couple of months ago. We watch a couple of episodes every weekend as a treat. She's mesmerised, but in a good way as she always has a pile of questions. It's amazing to watch how she processes information - sometimes she'll have questions there and then, and sometimes she'll obviously have been thinking about it, as she'll have a question hours/days/weeks later.

She already knows about the phases of matter and some of the general principles of buoyancy. She has some sort of mental model of the solar system, and she's fascinated by Jupiter, especially the great red spot which she knows is a huge storm. The list goes on.

Some of that she learned directly, and some of it came from her own investigation (she's been reading for a couple of years now), but it definitely seems to encourage her to ask questions, which I think is a wonderful thing for kids to pick up.

Surprisingly, I'd also rate Alton Brown as a sort of modern-day successor. It's not directly comparable, but Good Eats has that same sort of slightly crazy edge to it, and he does a pretty good job of explaining why things work the way they do in a bunch of weird and interesting ways.